# STATE OF GUJARAT v. JAGANBHAIBHAGWANBHAI February 16, 1966

- **Citation:** [1966] 3 S.C.R. 613
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-02-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1964
- **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, V. Ramaswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-gujarat-v-jaganbhaibhagwanbhai-february-16-1966-3627
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (Born. 4 of 1887), ss. 3
& 7-N ecessity of expert to prove articles seized whether ''instruments of
ganiing"-Evidence of officer to whom warrant issued-Corroboration ii
necessary.
The respondent was charged under ss. 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, on the allegation that ha was found accepting
bets on American futures, and on being searched currency notes and two
slips, on which American Futures were recorded, were found. The trial
Magistrate acquitted the respondent, which was confirmed, on appeal, by
the High Court. In appeal to this Court the appellant-State contended that
it was not necessary to examine an expert to corroborate the evidence
of the prosecuting sub-Inspector that the articles seized were "instruments
of gaming" and that the ll\idence of the Police Inspector to whom the
warrant was issued under s. 6 of the Act did not require corroboration
in each and every case.
HELD : The contentions are well founded and must be accepted as
correct.
There is nothing in the Act to suggest that in order to prove that the
articles seized are "instruments of gaming" it is the duty of the prosecution
to examine an expert in every case.
It is open to the prosecution to
prove that the articles seized are instruments of gaming by proper evi~
dence and it is not necessary to examine an expert for the purpose in each
and every case.
It is also not proper to make a distinction be.tween the evidence of
-an officer who makes a complaint under the proviso to s. 6 of the Act and to
whom a wanrant
issued for search and the evidence of a person to
whom a warrant is issued but who makes no such complaint under the
proviso.
The question as to whether the .,,-idence of the person who
executes the warrant requires corroboration depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no legal distinction can be made merely
because the per~n who executes the warrant happens to be the person
who make• the complaint under the proviso to s. 6 of the Act to the Commissioner of Police or to the Magistrate. [616 A-CJ
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal
No. 167 of 1964.
Appeal from the judgment and order November 4, 1963 of
the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 1962.
G. S. Patwardhan, R. N. Sachthey and B.R.G.K. Achar, for the
appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
~14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 3 S.C.R.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
,
H
STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
JAGANBHAIBHAGWANBHAI
February 16, 1966.
[K. SUBBA RAO AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (Born. 4 of 1887), ss. 3
& 7-N ecessity of expert to prove articles seized whether ''instruments of
ganiing"-Evidence of officer to whom warrant issued-Corroboration ii
necessary.
The respondent was charged under ss. 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, on the allegation that ha was found accepting
bets on American futures, and on being searched currency notes and two
slips, on which American Futures were recorded, were found. The trial
Magistrate acquitted the respondent, which was confirmed, on appeal, by
the High Court. In appeal to this Court the appellant-State contended that
it was not necessary to examine an expert to corroborate the evidence
of the prosecuting sub-Inspector that the articles seized were "instruments
of gaming" and that the ll\idence of the Police Inspector to whom the
warrant was issued under s. 6 of the Act did not require corroboration
in each and every case.
HELD : The contentions are well founded and must be accepted as
correct.
There is nothing in the Act to suggest that in order to prove that the
articles seized are "instruments of gaming" it is the duty of the prosecution
to examine an expert in every case.
It is open to the prosecution to
prove that the articles seized are instruments of gaming by proper evi~
dence and it is not necessary to examine an expert for the purpose in each
and every case.
It is also not proper to make a distinction be.tween the evidence of
-an officer who makes a complaint under the proviso to s. 6 of the Act and to
whom a wanrant
issued for search and the evidence of a person to
whom a warrant is issued but who makes no such complaint under the
proviso.
The question as to whether the .,,-idence of the person who
executes the warrant requires corroboration depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no legal distinction can be made merely
because the per~n who executes the warrant happens to be the person
who make• the complaint under the proviso to s. 6 of the Act to the Commissioner of Police or to the Magistrate. [616 A-CJ
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal
No. 167 of 1964.
Appeal from the judgment and order November 4, 1963 of
the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 1962.
G. S. Patwardhan, R. N. Sachthey and B.R.G.K. Achar, for the
appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
~14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 3 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. ll1is appeal is brought by the State of Gujarat
against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmeda-
.bad dated November 4, 1963 in Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 1962.
A
The respondent was charged in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bulsar under ss. 4 and 5 of the Bombay PrevenB
lion of Gambling Act, 1887 (Bombay Act IV of 1887), hereinafter
called the 'Act'. The case of the prosecution was that on January
31, 1962 at about 9 p.m. the respondent was found accepting bets
on American futures.
On being searched in the presence of
panchas currency notes of Rs. 119/- and two slips on which American futures were recorded were found.
The trying Magistrate,
C
however, held that slips \Vere not "instruments of gaming" within
the meaning of s. 7 of the Act. The Magistrate was also not
satisfied that the police officer who carried out the search and
seized the articles had reasonable grounds to believe that the slips
and other articles recovered from the respondent were instruments of gaming. The Magistrate held that the presumption
under s. 7 of the Act could not be raised. The respondent was,
D
therefore, acquitted <>f the charge. Against the onkr of acquittal
the State of Gujarat preferred an appeal to the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 1962. The
appeal was dismissed hy Raju, J. on November 4, 1963.
In support of this appeal '-'Ir. Patwardhan submitted that the
High Court was in error in holding that it is necessary to examine
an expert to corroborate the
evidence of the prosecuting SubInspector that the articles seized were "instruments of gaming".
It was also contended by Counsel that the High Court was not
right in taking the view that the evidence of the Police Inspector
to whom the warrant was issued under s. 6 of the Act required
corrob"ration in each and e\ery case.
In our opinion, both the
contentions of Mr. Patwardhan arc well-founded am! must he
accepted as correct.
Section 3 of the Act defines the expression "instruments of
gaming" as including any article used or intended to be used as
a subject or means of gaming, any document used or intended to
be used as a register or rcc"rd or evidence of any gaming, the
proceeds of any gaming, and any winnings or prizes in money or
-otherwise distributed or intended to he distributed in respect of
any gaming. Section 6 provides for entry and search by 1wlicc
<ifficers in gaming houses.
Section 6( I) states:
"6. (I) It shall be lawful for a Police Ofliccr-
(i) in :my area for which a Commissioner of Police
has heen appointed not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector
and either empowered by general order in writing or
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
•
H
GUJARAT v. BHAGWANBHAI (Ramaswami, J.)
'615
authorized in each case by special warrant issued by the
Commissioner of Police, and
.
(ii). elsewhe}'e not i)elow the rank of a Sub-Inspector
of Police authorised by special warrant issued in each case
by a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate
or by a Taluka Magistrate specially empowered by the State
Government in this behalf or by a Superintendent of Police
or by an Assistant or Deputy Superintendent of Police
especially empowered by the State Government in this
behalf, and
(iii) without prejudice to the provision in clause (ii)
above, in such other area as the State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf,
not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector and empowered by
general order in writing issued by the District Magistrate.
(a) to enter, with the assistance of such persons as
may be found necessary, by night or by day, and by force,
if necessary, any house, room or place which he has
reason to suspect is used as a common gaming-house.
(b) to search all parts of the house, room, or place
which he shall have so entered, when he shall have reason to
suspect that any instuments of gaming are concealed
therein, and also the persons whom he shall find therein
whether such persons are then actually gaming or not,
(c) to take into custody and bring before a Magistrate
all such persons,
( d) to seize all things which are reasonably suspected
to have been used or intended to be used for the purpose
of gaming, and which are found therein:
"
Section 7 of the Act relates to presumptive proof of keeping or
gaming in common gaming-house. Section 7 provides as follows:
"7. When any instrument of gaming has been seized
in any house, room or place entered under section 6 or about
the person of any one found therein, and in the case of any
other thing so seized if the court is satisfied that the Police
officer who entered such house, room or place had reasonable
grounds for suspecting that the thing so seized was an
instrument of gaming, the seizure of such instrument or thing
shall be evidence, until the contrary is proved, that such
house, room or place is used as a common gaming-house
and the persons found therein were then present for the
purpose of gaming, although no gaming was actually seen
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1966) 3 S.C.R.
by the Magistrate or the Police officer or by any person actA
ing under the authority of either of them:
•
There is nothing in the Act to suggest that in order to prove that
the articles seized are "instruments of gaming" it is the duty of the
prosecution to examine an expert in every case. It is open to the
prosecution to prove that the articles seized are instruments of
gaming by proper evidence and it is not necessary to examine
an expert for the purpose in each and every case. It is also not
proper to make a distinction between the evidence of an officer .who
makes a complaint under the proviso to s. 6 of the Act and to
whom a warrant is issued for search and the evidence of a person
to whom a warrant is issued but who makes no such complaint
under the proviso. The question as to whether the evidence of
the person who executes the warrant requires corroboration depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no legal
distinction can be made merely because the person who executes
the warrant happens to be the person who makes the complaint
under the proviso to s. 6 of the Act to the Commissioner ,of Police
or to the Magistrate.
We do not, however, propose to interfere with the order of
acquittal in this case, because the offence is petty and the offence
was committed several years back. We accordingly
dismiss
the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
c
D
. '
,